Judgment :- KANAKARAJ, J. 1. The Tamil Nadu Agricultural land is a Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (herein after called as “the Act”). Its bye-laws illustrate the point that the people who hanker for or aspire to occupy positions of prominence in any field should realise the duties and responsibilities of the office and that a Damocles sword always hangs over such officers of importance. It is common knowledge that people aspire for an office of the President of a Panchayat or the President of a Co-operative Society in rural areas, because such officer did command some respect in the village and a certain amount of status and prestige are also attached to such officer. But a very few people realise the risk involved in discharging the duties of such responsible officers. 2. On the basis of a Special Audit Enquiry report submitted under Sec. 65 of the Act, action was-initiated under Sec. 71 of the Act against the ex-President, seven Directors, one ex-Secretary and two other employees of the society for having caused loss to the tune of Rs. 1.69.386-95 ps. Against the order dated 7.5.80 of the Deputy Registrar an appeal was filed to the Special Tribunal and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal by giving adequate opportunity to the persons involved. Thereafter, meticulous care was persons to furnish copies of documents and an opportunity was given to all the persons involved to submit their explanations. Most of them had engaged lawyers. After hearing all the parties and after persuing the documents, the Deputy Registrar by his order dated 7.5.80 held that all the persons were liable to make good the deficiency caused to the society to the tune of Rs. 1,39,238.50 ps. On account of their wilful negligence. The Deputy Registrar proceeded to hold that the Ex-secretary and some of the employees of the society were specifically responsible for certain stated amounts. So far as the Ex-president. Ex. Vice President, Ex-Treasurer and Ex-Director were concerned, they were found jointly and severally liable for a sum of Rs. 76.897.50 ps in respect of certain items. Certain other items in respect of which a show cause notice was issued to them were, however found to be not substantiated and accordingly dropped. Against the said order, a statutory appeal was filed before the Special Tribunal by the appellants herein and certain others. 76.897.50 ps in respect of certain items. Certain other items in respect of which a show cause notice was issued to them were, however found to be not substantiated and accordingly dropped. Against the said order, a statutory appeal was filed before the Special Tribunal by the appellants herein and certain others. The appeals filed by the appellants were registered as CMA Nos. 227 and 223of 1980. The said appeals along with the connected appeals were dismissed by the Special Tribunal on 21.3.83. The appellants challenged the findings of the Tribunal in W.P. No. 1641 of 1984. Raju, J. by his order dated 18.12.1991 dismissed the said writ petition. The present writ appeal is directed against the said order of the learned Single Judge. 3. Mr. N.S. Sivam, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the authorities below as well as the learned Single Judge had not kept in mind the significant question that the mere negligence on the part of the Ex-Directors would not make them liable under a surcharge order and what is required is wilful negligence. It support of his arguments learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision in Subbammai v. President, Tenkasi Co-operative Urban Bank (1976 11 MLJ 460 = 89 L.W. 641) and in Sathyamangalam Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. v. Dy. Regr. of Coop. Society (1980 11 MLJ 17). In the latter judgment, the degree of negligence as contemplated under Sec. 71 of the Act is explained in the following words: “The degree of negligence that is contemplated under Sec. 7(1) of the Act is not a mere negligence, but wilful negligence. The word “Wilful has not been defined in the Act. The word ‘wilfulness’ or ‘wantonness’ imports pre-meditation or knowledge and consciousness that an injury or loss is likely to result from the act done or from the omission to act. Thus, the term unports a constructive intention as to the consequences which, entering into the wilful act.” “The law imputes to the offender and m this way a charge which otherwise would be mere negligence, becomes, by reason of a wilful wrong, hi other words, the conduct of a person, to amount to ‘wilful negligence’, must be something more than ordinary negligence. To constitute wilful negligence, the act done or omitted to be done must be intended or must involve such reckless disregard of security and right as to imply bad faith”. 4. We have no dispute with the above proposition of law. The question really is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities below liave found wilful negligence on the part of the Ex-Directors. W: are in this case concerned only with the Vice-President and the 2nd appellant was the Treasurer of the Society during the relevant period. Having regard to the above arguments it is necessary for us to notice the manner and method in which the loss was caused to the Society. There are as many as 15 items of misappropriation and 30 items of non-disbursement of loans to the members. For the purpose of illustration, we will take one case of misappropriation and one case of non disbursement. Under items 9 and 10 a benarni loan of Rs. 8700/- was raised in the name of one A. Jayaraman when there was no such person in the village. The loan was raised on the basis of a false property certificate. The disbursement was duly shown on the disbursement register on 29.3.75 and 2.4.75. Under item No. 38 the surcharge related to non-disbursement of fixed deposit loans amounting to Rs. 3650 is made. The Deputy Registrar accepted the receipt of Rs. 1,000 only and not Rs. 1050/- as shown in the records. Again, entries had been made in the records of the Bank, as if another loan of Rs. 870 was disbursed to him on 3.3.75. This disbursement was approved by the Board in its meeting held on 7.5.75. There were similar entries as if another sum of Rs. 1950 was disbursed to him on 31.3.75, on the security of a Fixed Deposit. No entries had been made on the reverse side of the Fixed Deposit Registrar denied the receipt of any loan of Rs. 3650. We have indicated only certain samples to show the mncius operandi of the ex-employees and ex-directors in causing loss to the Society. It must be noticed here that the Deputy Registrar had found several items as not having been proved and the surcharge proceedings were dropped in respect of such items. 3650. We have indicated only certain samples to show the mncius operandi of the ex-employees and ex-directors in causing loss to the Society. It must be noticed here that the Deputy Registrar had found several items as not having been proved and the surcharge proceedings were dropped in respect of such items. It is thus seen that the Deputy Registrar had meticulously gone through the records before holding the persons concerned were liable for some of the items for which there was ample proof. Before proceeding further it is interesting to see that the Deputy Registrar had framed issues and the second and third of which are as follows: “Whether the deficiency in the funds of the Bank was caused by wilful negligence as contemplated under Sec. 71 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act 53 of 1961”. “Who are the persons responsible for causing deficiency by their act of wilful negligence”. The Deputy Registrar was quite aware of the necessity to prove wilful negligence. In this connection, while the ex-employees of the Bank were found guilty of misappropriation and breach of trust in relation to the funds of the Bank, the ex-Directors were acquitted in the criminal proceedings. The acquittal by the Criminal Court would not enable the ex-Directors to contend that the wilful negligence cannot be proved in a surcharge proceeding under Section 71 of the Act. The prosecution in the criminal court is different from proving wilful negligence on the part of the ex-Directors. The Deputy Registrar righty observes that the siphoning of the funds of the Society were being carried on over a period of three or four years. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Ex-Directors were merely negligent, but were found guilty of wilful negligence^ There are several other aspects discussed by the Deputy Registrar was aware of the necessity and he found wilful negligence on the part of the Ex-Directors. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Ex-Directors were merely negligent, but were found guilty of wilful negligence^ There are several other aspects discussed by the Deputy Registrar was aware of the necessity and he found wilful negligence on the part of the Ex-Directors. We will advert to the circumstances relied on by the Deputy Registrar one by one: (i) The Bye-law 19(I) of the Society says that the executive management of the affairs of the Bank shall vest in the Board of Directors elected by the general body; (ii) The Board of Directors shall be elected in such a way that there shall be on the board atleast one representing each one of the revenue villages or group of villages in the area of operation of the Bank! The Deputy Registrar refers to the members of the Board Directors of the constituency from which they were elected first. As righty pointed out by the Deputy Registrar each of the Directors is expected to have a clear and correct information about the members of the bank hailing from his constituency; (iii) The main business of the bank was to sanction and disburse agricultural loans to its members, residing in the area of operation of the Bank. For this purpose, funds are received from the co-operative Central Bank. Trichy. The Society also collects deposits from its own members; (iv) Bye-law 23(a) says that uie President shall have the general control over all the affairs of the Bank. The Treasurer and the Secretary shall have the general custody of all the properties of the Bank including cash, jewels pledged with the Society as securities for loan; (v) Bye-law 38 imposes a duty on the part of the Board of Directors to prove the applications for loans. Similarly, the loans on the pledge of the fixed deposit is to be sanctioned by the President on the recommendations of the Secretary, subject to ratification by the Board of Directors. (vi) All the actions of the Secretary have to be verified and approved by the Board of Directors. (vii) In the instant case, the Board of Directors had sanctioned agricultural loans to the persons who had no lands, to the persons who were residing outside the area of operation of the Bank and to persons on the pledge of the fixed deposit without following the procedure prescribed for hypothecation. (vii) In the instant case, the Board of Directors had sanctioned agricultural loans to the persons who had no lands, to the persons who were residing outside the area of operation of the Bank and to persons on the pledge of the fixed deposit without following the procedure prescribed for hypothecation. In sanctioning the above loans, the ex-Directors and office-bearers had committed wilful default in the proper discharge of the duties entrusted to them under the bye-laws. (viii) The Deputy Registrar also found that the ex-Directors had vast experience and they cannot plead ignorance or innocence. (ix) So far as the ex-Treasurer is concerned, who is the second petitioner in writ petition, the Deputy Registrar categorically finds that the fixed deposit receipts, on the pledge of which loans were sanctioned were not at all found in the custody of the Society. Such receipts wee found only with the depositors. He therefore, says that the ex-Treasurer was wilfully negligent in the discharge of his duties. (x) The ex-Directors knew and full well that the loan amounts were not actually disbursed to the parties concerned. The ex-Directors knew full well that it was one of their duties to verify the disbursement of loans. They knew full well that payments under the fixed deposit loans and payments of interest were made without any vouchers. When there were no entries at all the ex-Directors in the systematic misappropriation of funds was clearly established. 5. The Deputy Registrar also holds that the acquittal of the Ex-Directors in the Criminal Court will not ensure to their benefit because civil liability is totally deprived of. In fact, he refers to the observation of the Magistrate in the criminal case No. 12333 of 1979, Wherein it is pointed out that the ex-Directors might be civilly liable for the deficiency caused to the assets of the Society. 6. The above clear findings of the Deputy Registrar have also been carefully scrutinized by the Tribunal presided over by a Judicial Officer. The Tribunal observes that the loss caused to the Society had not been disputed by any of the appellants. The Tribunal also rejected the contention that the entire loss was due to the action of the Secretary and other paid employees and that the ex-Director were solely dependent on the advice of the Secretary. The Tribunal observes that the loss caused to the Society had not been disputed by any of the appellants. The Tribunal also rejected the contention that the entire loss was due to the action of the Secretary and other paid employees and that the ex-Director were solely dependent on the advice of the Secretary. This very statement in defence itself discloses the hollowness of the defence plea apparently, as we have already pointed out that the ex-Directors did not realize their duties and responsibilities imposed on them by the bye-laws. The Tribunal also refers to the by-laws 19(1) 21(2) 23(a) and 29 for the purpose of concluding that the duties of the ex-Directors cannot be forgotten. It is also found that the Directors had a duty to verify the genuineness of the loan applications also the disbursements. In this connection reference is made to by-laws 40 and 44. Failure to get the fixed deposit receipts as security is also commented upon. The Tribunal therefore finds that the Ex-Directors were purposely negligent. In fact, the Tribunal holds that the ex-Directors knowing the regular members of the society had been privy to the misappropriation and losses caused to the society/-There was also evidence to show that the forms had been signed in blank and subsequently filled up by the persons involved In the misappropriation The Tribunal therefore comes to the conclusion that all the persons including the ex-Directors were jointly involved in committing the misappropriation. The mere fact that the irregularities were not found out in the Annual Audit cannot absolve the ex-Directors from their liability. 7. Apart from the statutory authorities, the learned Single Judge has also perused the orders and found that the findings of the statutory authorities had been arrived at on available records and evidence. Therefore the ingredients of wilful negligence, as pointed out in the judgment of Rathnavel Pandian, J. (as he then was) to which we have already made reference should fully satisfy and found to be available in the instant case. There is no scope for interference in the order of the learned Single Judge. 8. Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no orders as to costs.